In Nepal, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told his hosts that India is willing to re-visit its 1950 treaty with Nepal, the basic framework for the bilateral relationship. This offer had also been made by previous Indian governments and Modi did the right thing by reiterating this position. There are two basic problems with the existing treaty. The circumstances in which it was conceived have long since changed. In addition, while the 1950 treaty seems innocuous, the subsequent correspondence between the countries to actualise it has led to misunderstandings. Nepal should take up Modi’s offer and soon begin negotiating changes.

Since 1950, Nepal has undergone a regime change. In 1950 Mohun Shamsher Rana, a hereditary prime minister, signed the agreement on behalf of Nepal. Since then, Nepal has evolved into a full fledged democracy. Both the passage of time and subsequent change in Nepal’s political structure make it necessary to revisit the treaty. In Nepal, there is annoyance about the way in which parts of the treaty are operationalised, conveying the impression India has extraordinary leverage in the working of another sovereign nation.

The initiative NDA government has taken to revive ties with Nepal presents an opportunity to reset the bilateral relationship. A reset will serve both sides well. It provides India an opportunity to neutralise a perception problem it suffers and simultaneously nudges Nepal to take a clear-headed approach on what it wants out of the relationship. Hopefully, on this occasion the stage has been set to move things forward, more so after Modi promised his hosts that India has no desire to interfere in Nepal’s internal affairs. Even if Nepal reaps a disproportionate share of benefits from the existing 1950 treaty, Modi’s offer to renegotiate it places the ball in Kathmandu’s court.

Proposals for reviewing and refashioning the India-Nepal friendship treaty, which have been raised by most Nepalese political parties, centre around renegotiating cooperation on water resource development, halting the recruitment of Gurkhas in the Indian army, solving issues like land encroachment and border management and regulation — issues that may adversely impact Nepal rather than India. Nepal has reaped disproportionate levels of benefits from the terms of the existing agreement. The free movement of Nepalese citizens to India, without requiring travel documents, generates huge remittances earned by migrant workers, contributing to Nepal’s GDP.

Friendship and peace between two neighbouring countries can be deepened when mutual concerns are addressed. For years together, Nepal was a convenient transit territory for Pakistani-backed terrorists. Repeated reminders by New Delhi that Kathmandu strengthen border security and enhance its intelligence capabilities have gone unaddressed, leaving India vulnerable to Pakistan’s ISI-backed terrorists.

Demands for revision of the treaty have arisen out of short-term considerations, including electoral gains. The continuing rhetoric is part of a small country’s unreasonable demands against a larger neighbour, which would not end even if favourable concessions are made to it. Nepal’s disgruntlement at India is a bit like India’s disgruntlement at the US — which is why there was ferocious resistance, including from BJP, to the India-US nuclear deal which brought India out of the nuclear doghouse. It’s felt that engagement with a powerful nation will entangle and ultimately trap the weaker nation in the former’s coils. It’s an aspect of the psychology of small nations that mere revision of a treaty won’t address.